When the House of Representatives passed a tough new border control bill last night, Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo was all smiles.

He led an often-lonely and sometimes seemingly hopeless fight not only against Democratic opponents but against his own party and his own president.

"Today, the House of Representatives passed a bill which strengthens our border security and begins to enforce immigration laws throughout the country," he said. "Over the last two days, reformers in the House have accomplished much: we have approved a security fence along our southern border, we have taken steps to end 'catch and release' nationwide, we have slashed funds to localities that shield illegal aliens, and we have gone after employers who attract illegal aliens to the U.S."

The House voted 239-182 to stem the tide of illegal immigration by taking steps to tighten border controls and stop unlawful immigrants from getting jobs. But lawmakers left for next year the tougher issue of what to do with between 11 million and 20 million illegal aliens already in the country.

The House legislation, billed as a border protection, anti-terrorism and illegal immigration control act, includes enlisting military and local law enforcement help in stopping illegal entrants and requiring employers to verify the legal status of their workers. It authorizes the building of a fence along parts of the U.S.-Mexico border.

One measure that Republican leaders wouldn't allow a vote on was a volatile proposal to deny citizenship to babies born in this country to illegal immigrants.

The issue next moves to the Senate, where Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., says he will bring up immigration legislation in February that will provide a framework for guest worker ideas that some see as amnesty for lawbreakers.

President Bush has proposed that illegal aliens be allowed to get three-year work visas. They could extend those for an additional three years, but would then have to return to their home countries for a year to apply for a new work permit.

The House bill would beef up border security with the help of local law enforcement and military technology, impose tougher penalties for smuggling and re-entry, and end the "catch and release" policy for illegal non-Mexicans. It makes drunken driving convictions a deportable offense.

The bill makes unlawful presence in the United States, currently a civil offense, a felony. An amendment to reduce the crime from a felony to a misdemeanor was defeated, with many Democrats voting against the proposal because they did not want to make it a criminal offense at all.

The House bill would also require all employers in the country to submit Social Security numbers and other information to a national database to verify the legal status of workers.

"Some said that we couldn't do it, that businesses are too addicted to illegal labor, that the problem is too complex for Congress to tackle," said Tancredo, the chairman of the 92-member House Immigration Reform Caucus. "When it became clear that the American people's demand for reform was too loud to ignore, our political foes changed their arguments and hid their intentions behind new language. Suddenly, amnesty was a 'path to citizenship,' an 'earned legalization,' or 'comprehensive reform.' We passed comprehensive reform today: we penalized illegal alien employers and secured our borders."

Tancredo added: "The fact that Congress was forced to discuss immigration reform in itself is a victory for my allies. Such a victory has been years in the making, and credit is due to the millions of Americans who attended town halls, wrote letters to the editor, called talk radio shows, and even defended the border on their own. I thank them whole-heartedly for their efforts, and I am deeply honored by the support they have shown me and my congressional allies."

Just a year ago, Tancredo said he could count his allies in the House on two hands. But Republican lawmakers began to see just how critical the issue was to voters in their districts. A recent poll showed border security second only to the war in Iraq as a motivating issue for voters.

"Today we savor our victory, but tomorrow we must begin the fight to ensure our victory becomes reality," he said. "I am well aware that this is a three-round fight, and while this has been a good round, we haven't delivered the knockout punch. The open borders lobby and its cronies in the Senate will undoubtedly attempt to attach an amnesty to our reform bill. The American people know what the Senate's plan is, and they will bring political punishment to any official that favors it. No backdoor amnesty -- no matter what you call it -- will become law. Americans demand real reform now and, thankfully, they may get it."

...our political foes changed their arguments and hid their intentions behind new language. Suddenly, amnesty was a 'path to citizenship,' an 'earned legalization,' or 'comprehensive reform.' We passed comprehensive reform today: we penalized illegal alien employers and secured our borders."

If we can get the illegal immigration thing under control, then perhaps we don't need the broad sweeping powers of the Patriot Act. I kinda think that the Patriot Act needs revision, gives govt. too many powers.

As for the fence, some two-bit judge can still block it. Judges can do anything in this country. There is the crazy Judge Greer of Florida. Another judge in the NW declared that a mother cannot eavesdrop on her child's conversation with a predator.

And then there is US District Judge Raner C. Collins, a demented soul. He ordered the Arizona legislature to spend more money for students learning English and huge fines for anyone not meeting his deadlines. Furthermore, he declared that students learning English have to be given high school diplomas without passing the state's graduation tests. Now there is a little dictator. (Source: The Washington Times, Dec. 17)

It all depends on the type of fence. Even the best fence by itself, however, is not enough but it is at least a step in the right direction. We have to start rounding up and deporting these criminals - they pose the greatest threat to the security and future of this country.

I cannot understand what is so adorable about these illegal aliens that states offer special perks to attract them - such as reduced college tuition, free medical care (at our expense, of course), translators, etc.

And if they do not feel like learning English or studying in school, then crazy judges such as Judge Raner Collins want to force the state to give them a diploma. This makes a diploma worthless.

Because..."it would just take too many resources to prosecute them...hiring attorneys for them...jail space...etc etc etc etc"...it was also stated that it would be much easier to deport them if they just kept the illegal invasion of America [in time of war] a "misdemeanor"....

Frankly, I think that Tom Tancredo is a loon. While protecting our border is fine (I'm much more concerned about the Canadian border than the Mexican one myself), I don't think it should be done at the expense of all immigration, which is what Tancredo wants. The best way to stop illegal immigration, in my opinion, is to increase the # of people allowed in the U.S. legally.

Agreed. This will never happen. But imagine the reactions from Lurch, Al-I, Nancy, Barbara, The Swimmer, The Beast, Stainman, Chuckie, Feingold, Al-II, Jessie, McLaime, Daschle, and Donner, and Dixon, and Prancer and... ?

2. How many of my tax$$$ are going to go to crooked contractors on this? And the maintenence for years every tiime some Mexican blows a hole in it.

3. I must admit, I used to think Tancredo was a yahoo. But, I was surprised that he's highly articulate and intelligent. But, this is just a "Let's DO Something!" boondoggle. I don't think the USA should be symbolized by barbed wire, even if it was workable.

This country already has too many people. And look at the riffraff among even the legal immigrants.

Our scenic areas and historical battlefields are being destroyed for tacky housing developments. Traffic jams are growing problem in my area. As Daily pointed out in "Too Many Americans," our quality of life is being damaged by numbers.

We import legally Somalis, for example. I recommend that you read the book or watch the film "Black Hawk Down."

It's a waste of money to put up a fence when the NAFTA program was implemented to equalize the standard of living so they can merge all of the North American countries into one entity.

[b]Can you all say Amero $....?[/b]

Why do you think they have let all of the Mexicans in the US for? Every Friday they pay their Tote UR Note car lot a payment, buy a case of beer and send a Western Union MO to MX. This elevates the standard of living and the NAFTA bill sends all of our jobs to MX as well. They should be either catching or passing us soon.............

As refugees from war... The U.S. does that for refugees in many other wars as well.

As for the rest of your screed, I find it very disturbing. My ancestors were "riffraff" who came over from Europe during the late 19th century. As were yours, I'm sure. And I think that those immigrants made America a much better place. Therefore, I have a similar view of current immigrants. If someone is willing to work hard and better himself or herself, then I think that he or she should be welcomed into the U.S. The more legal immigration there is, the better..

Well, then, let's just get out of the middle! Do something like an underground railroad to get them quickly from Mexico to Canada. After all, Canada is much more progressive, with government health care for all and cheaper drugs, so it's probably a better place for them to go to.

While protecting our border is fine... The best way to stop illegal immigration, in my opinion, is to increase the # of people allowed in the U.S. legally.

"Fine"? "Fine"? Accygirl - it sounds like you don't know too much about the subject but are spouting rehearsed lines.

Just for starters, we already legally allow in more than any other country and our cities and towns are bursting at the seams without adequate infrastructure.

As usual with you open border types, you haven't posted a state flag, so it's hard to tell if you have any idea of the diseases being brought to the Southwest United States. Thanks to Kennedy, Clinton, now Bush, and globalist people like you, not only have we lost most of our emergency rooms, we are dealing with dengue fever, leprosy, tb, and whooping cough outbreaks, among other things.

- Note the difference between legal and illegal immigration. Frankly, I have nothing against people from other countries who want to immigrate and work hard in the U.S. My ancestors were just those types of people, and I'm 100% sure that yours were as well.

- My main concerns with the border situation is A. terrorism and B. drug/ human trafficking. I have nothing against hardworking Mexicans who come to the U.S. to find jobs; in my opinion, they make this country a better place.

My ancestors were just those types of people, and I'm 100% sure that yours were as well.

You're right, but my parents had to wait several years to be admitted into the United States, and they were escaping the horrors of Stalin and Hitler, not just seeking economic opportunity. In those days, there were quotas and we only absorbed what we could absorb. People had to be healthy to be admitted, have jobs (those old enough), sponsors, speak English well, know the Constitution, and so on. I have many relatives who weren't admitted because they (falsely) tested positive for TB.

Now, after the 1960s, almost anyone can come legally from almost any country. How many is too many? We already import more than our share, legally, plus we have an estimated 20 - 35 million here illegally. After the last five years of the rampant illegal alien invasion, yes, we may need to reassess the entire situation, legal and illegal. I know we don't have the roads, hospitals, or schools in AZ to support any more of this without becoming 3rd world.

Immigrants and their children now account for perhaps one-half of United States population growth, and that proportion is certain to continue climbing into the 21st century. There are perhaps as many as 40 million more people in the U.S. today than there would have been if the annual average number of new immigrants under the old system had remained undisturbed, according to demographer Leon Bouvier. The immigration flows of the last 30 years have not only been larger but also less well-educated, since skills-based immigration accounts for only about 10 percent of the total flow. Family "reunification" and refugee and amnesty flows, acknowledged to bring people of lower educational attainment, account for the rest."

Well, my relatives came over from Europe during the 19th century for purely economic reasons, and unlike during World War II, none of these requirements applied. And they were extremely poor as well. My grandfather's ancestors were day laborers in Germany, so there's no way that they'd have even been literate, let alone know English. However, despite that, in a few generations, they had built a successful small business in Chicago and were highly productive citizens.

As for the restrictive immigration during WWII, I don't think that that's something that any American should be proud of because many of the people turned away were sent back to their almost certain deaths in European concentration camps.

America isn't overcrowded: - Europe is actually becoming less populated and much older because A. most women don't want to stay at home and pop out ten kids, like in the 1950s, and B. they don't allow immigration. In contrast, America isn't facing this problem because it's replacing its population through immigration.

- Certain states, like Nebraska and Iowa, are trying to encourage people to settle in their states.

Furthermore, in the 19th century, most immigrants lived in slums and probably would have been on welfare if such a thing had existed back then. However, these original immigrants' children and grandchildren became productive members of society.

After all, if things are going well in their homeland, then they wouldn't have wanted to leave.

My parents and relatives sure didn't want to leave, but the United States/FDR gave away their countries to Stalin and it was either that or Siberia. Many of my relatives went to the Siberian death camps, and most didn't come back. The rest waited in displaced persons' camps throughout Europe.

At any rate, they were economically much better off before the war than starting over in whichever country would admit them. Welfare and other socialist programs existed here, but there was no way, no how, not one that went on those.

But that was then, this is now, and it's interesting that you think we still need more people in this country. How many more "immigrants" do you think we "need"?

"Between 1800 and 1965," Mr. Tancredo writes in his statement on the bill, "the annual number of people admitted as immigrants averaged about 200,000. Since 1990, that number has been over one millionand that doesn't count illegal immigrants."

With more than a million legal immigrants entering every year, there is no way the federal bureaucracies that deal with immigrants and national security threats could handle the problem.

It would take an army larger than any in the world simply to keep track of the aliens who are already here.

But national security, an obvious and immediate threat, is only part of the problem with mass immigration. The larger problem is the impact the immigration numbers haveon the economy, the culture, the educational system, crime and social institutions generally. And even larger than that is the number problem by itself.

Mr. Tancredo in his statement remarked "The Census Bureau projects that U.S. population will hit 400 million by 2050 and 571 million by 2100"up from 280 million in the 2000 Census.

But the congressman's numbers were outdated only weeks after he cited them. This month the Census Bureau announced that by 2050, the national population will stand at 420 million, 17 million more than the previous estimate.

If you like sitting in traffic, standing in line, paying skyrocketing rents and home prices, and watching natural resources vanish to sustain this level of human numbers, you'll think the America of the future is a utopia.

Of course this country is overcrowded. While there are many unsettled areas, most of them do not have the water supply to support a town. Back in the early days there was a need for more immigrants, but not any more - certainly not immigrants who are from hostile countries and refuse to even learn English but demand all kinds of special services.

I know of many historical and scenic areas that have been destroyed for tacky housing developments. The population has been growing and growing (if you don't believe me, just look up the statistics) while the amount of land remains the same and certain resources are dwindling.

An interesting discussion of overcrowding can be found in "The Pump House Gang" by Tom Wolfe, Ch. 15 (O Rotten Gotham - Sliding Down into the Behavioral Sink)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.